Battlefield realism?

Alright. Before I begin this debate please note that I'm not saying one game is better than the other. Personally I liked playing Bad Company 2 more than the latest CoD game. Don't throw random homophobic slurs at me because you disagree. I realize there are a ton of BF fans on this forum and alot of COD haters too but please be mature when you comment.

First off, not one of these Battlefield games are ultra-realistic war simulations. If they WERE ultra-realisitc then they wouldn't be nearly as fun. Some of the points I make on here will arguably be a bit trivial, but relevant nonetheless. I just want to debunk the misconception that Battlefield is as hyper-realistic as some say it is.

Point #1: The Weapon models aren't accurate at all in Battlefield. In pretty much any of the Battlefield games there are monumentally huge inaccuracies in the weapon modeling and or usage. A couple examples are:

-In Battlefield 1942 the Type 96 Light Machine Gun in game features twenty round magazines, in real life they utilise thirty round magazines.
-There are alot of weapons in Battlefield 1942/1943 that weren't actually manufactured until 1944
-In Battlefield Bad Company 2 the SCAR is a submachine gun. In real life all versions of the SCAR are regarded as assault riffles.
-Inaccurate weapon sounds for various guns.
-Sniper damage is really messed up. It shouldn't take 2 shots with an M24 to kill someone. In reality practically any sniper could blow your fucking limbs off. In real life the SVD sniper can do some ENORMOUS amount of damage yet in game it's weak as fuck.

Point #2: Movement/mobility is crazy unrealistic. First off, no matter which weapon you are carrying with you, you still run the same speed. Even if you are carrying an LMG versus carrying a sub-machine gun your run speed will not be affected. Second, you can RELOAD while you are SPRINTING. This is something not even HALO will let you do..AND THAT'S A FUCKING SCIENCE FICTION GAME. And in the latest BF titles, there is no prone. What kind of sniper doesn't go prone!?!?

Point #3: Tanks!!! God I fucking hate them. They can take so much fucking damage it's ridiculous. Oh and if your tank happens to be on the brink of failing on you can you repair it all by yourself if you are an engineer. This is NOT realistic AT ALL.


Miscellaneous points:

-You can plant bombs and still have the ability to aim and shoot? :?:
-You can hold your breath forever while using a sniper.
-You can run forever .
-The destruction model in Battlefield is AWESOME. But with every pro there is a con. Thanks to the fact that every building can be blown up DICE modeled them all to be similar. It makes the map feel uninspired and boring when all of the buildings look practically the same inside out.
-Ironically bullets DON'T shoot through walls despite the games having so much emphasis on destruction

Agreed Alan. I think more games should be like the uber realistic Uncharted series.


But I don't think anyone claims that Battlefield is like some real life simulator. It's just that it comes out that way when they compare it to other shooting games.

Teckno wrote:

Agreed Alan. I think more games should be like the uber realistic Uncharted series.


But I don't think anyone claims that Battlefield is like some real life simulator. It's just that it comes out that way when they compare it to other shooting games.

But that's ALL I SEE when people argue why Battlefield is better than COD. They bring up the destruction model and act like Battlefield is some war simulation. Having destruction in your game doesn't make up for the fact that the game is unrealistic.

No war game is REAL. End of story. There is shit that happens on the battlefield in real life that will scar you for life. It's impossible to simulate the tensions you feel and the adrenaline chasing you down as you run for cover from fire and missiles.

Reaper wrote:

its realistic enough while maintaining that fun factor.

This.

I don't think anyone claims BF is a realistic war simulator, it's just slightly more realistic then say CoD.

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Reaper wrote:

its realistic enough while maintaining that fun factor.

This.

I don't think anyone claims BF is a realistic war simulator, it's just slightly more realistic then say CoD.

Alot of BF's unrealistic aspects are even worse than CoD. Surely the only "realism" points it has over CoD is destruction and vehicles right? Everything else seems to be in favor of CoD. Even down to technical aspects like frame rate. CoD on consoles is 60 frames per second which results in tighter and more fluid controls. I'd say CoD4 is more realistic than any of the Battlefield games. MW2 is the most "arcady" CoD because IW took out much weapon kickback that was in CoD4 and made a stronger emphasis on noobtubes and melee combat.



The video fucked up with the title. It's suppose to be about CoD4 not MW2.

Quote :

BC2 has gravity that affects bullet drop, meanwhile in cod every weapon is a railgun and will always hit where you aim over any distance......totally ludicrous.

Call of Duty DOES have bullet drop and air resistance to bullets but it's usually exclusive to campaign. In multiplayer the maps are much smaller than they are in Battlefield which would make the effect negligible if it were added. In BF the maps are atleast 10 times bigger on average so it would make sense for DICE to add this effect.

Quote :

And melee in BC2 automatically aims for the head/neck area which will kill, in cod you can be slashed in the toe and be killed......fail.

So the animation makes it LOOK more realistic, but that doesn't change the fact that in both games as long as you melee someone in their general direction it will be a one hit kill. In truth this is probably the least realistic aspect of BOTH games.

Quote :

The idea of it taking so many RPG's to destroy a tank is very realistic, a Challenger 2 tank in iraq was hit by 70 rpg's and a Milan anti tank missile and all it done was smash the sights. Obviously for game balance tank can be destroyed by RPG's but i think the point was for it to be a team effort to destroy a tank. Imagine how pointless tanks would be if they could be taken out by 1 or 2 rockets, i do somewhat agree with you though especially the other night we played and the other team were just steam rolling us with tanks...i think this is more a vehicle number issue though as they give the americans far too many tanks in Arica Harbour.

Point taken. But the thing about tanks in BC2 is that they have ALOT of health AND they can be repaired pretty easily if you are an engineer. The fact that you can repair it on the spot makes it both unrealistic and OP.

Quote :

CoD being 60fps might have something to do with it not being HD and not having to use assets on the destruction, larger map size and generally alot more going on at once on screen. I'd also like to add that cod drops frames sometimes while BC2 for me has always been fixed at 30 fps.

It is true the game does run at sub-HD resolution on consoles but IMO it still looks better than the latest Battlefield game because it has anti-aliasing. In BF:BC2 the jaggies are quite obvious and in some cases distracting.

Both games drop in performance when under stress. They just do it differently. CoD games drop frames when under stress (but it never goes down below 40 FPS). Battlefield games lose v-sync and start screen tearing like crazy when the engine is under stress. Even in the worst case scenario in CoD the framerate is high enough to give the controls a really fluid feel to it. This is the best part of the CoD engine. BF3 is using a new engine so we will see if it screen tears as bad as BC2, but it's already been confirmed that it will be 30 FPS on consoles =/.

Quote :

The idea of not being able to shoot through buildings in BC2 is somewhat accurate, most of the weapons in BC2 are 5.56mm based...not a terribly formidable round when matched up against concrete walls. You can however shoot through thin objects like wooden fences, corrigated iron and plywood walls. Another reason for not being able to shoot through buildings is due to assault classes being able to drop more ammo. Its fine having bullet penetration in cod but seriously do you waste your ammo shooting through walls or do you wait for the enemy to break cover? When i played cod i chose the latter unless i actually knew the exact position of the enemy then i would fire into the wall. In BC2 however you could literally drop an ammo box and keep firing into a building until you got them, it would get highly annoying not being able to take cover anywhere at all.

Then surely it depends on the range then? Even a 5.56mm based weapon could shoot through a wall if it was fired (for example) at point blank range. It's not really a waste of ammo if you know that the enemy is stationed at the same position.

Phyuck Yiu wrote:

Quote :

BC2 has gravity that affects bullet drop, meanwhile in cod every weapon is a railgun and will always hit where you aim over any distance......totally ludicrous.

Call of Duty DOES have bullet drop and air resistance to bullets but it's usually exclusive to campaign. In multiplayer the maps are much smaller than they are in Battlefield which would make the effect negligible if it were added. In BF the maps are atleast 10 times bigger on average so it would make sense for DICE to add this effect.

You are right but you are wrong. only one mission in the entire Cod games (and i have played all of them) has Bullet drop and that is this mission

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/One_Shot,_One_Kill

correct me if i am wrong

Franko wrote:

Phyuck Yiu wrote:

Quote :

BC2 has gravity that affects bullet drop, meanwhile in cod every weapon is a railgun and will always hit where you aim over any distance......totally ludicrous.

Call of Duty DOES have bullet drop and air resistance to bullets but it's usually exclusive to campaign. In multiplayer the maps are much smaller than they are in Battlefield which would make the effect negligible if it were added. In BF the maps are atleast 10 times bigger on average so it would make sense for DICE to add this effect.

You are right but you are wrong. only one mission in the entire Cod games (and i have played all of them) has Bullet drop and that is this mission

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/One_Shot,_One_Kill

I could have sworn the bullets in campaign behave with bullet drop and air resistance. I know for a fact there isn't hitscan (where the bullet doesn't immediately hit the target), but really other than in that one mission you rarely ever snipe people far enough to the point where bullet drop would be a considerable factor. In Battlefield you can snipe people that are more than a mile away which is why the effect is more prominent. Considering what I just said and the fact that you have to hold your breath to aim accurately wouldn't that make snipers a tad bit more realistic in CoD?

Well you can't really Quick scope and no scope.... ^

Franko wrote:

Well you can't really Quick scope and no scope.... ^

Yes you can? No scoping in both games are mostly luck-based. It's dumb to mention.

Phyuck Yiu wrote:

First off, not one of these Battlefield games are ultra-realistic war simulations. If they WERE ultra-realisitc then they wouldn't be nearly as fun.

yeah no need for this thread. its just a game

no game can ever sim real life

so the point of this thread was pointless & you are a cunt


battlefield is better

Phyuck Yiu wrote:

Point #1: The Weapon models aren't accurate at all in Battlefield. In pretty much any of the Battlefield games there are monumentally huge inaccuracies in the weapon modeling and or usage. A couple examples are:

-In Battlefield 1942 the Type 96 Light Machine Gun in game features twenty round magazines, in real life they utilise thirty round magazines.
-There are alot of weapons in Battlefield 1942/1943 that weren't actually manufactured until 1944
-In Battlefield Bad Company 2 the SCAR is a submachine gun. In real life all versions of the SCAR are regarded as assault riffles.
-Inaccurate weapon sounds for various guns.
-Sniper damage is really messed up. It shouldn't take 2 shots with an M24 to kill someone. In reality practically any sniper could blow your fucking limbs off. In real life the SVD sniper can do some ENORMOUS amount of damage yet in game it's weak as fuck.

Point #2: Movement/mobility is crazy unrealistic. First off, no matter which weapon you are carrying with you, you still run the same speed. Even if you are carrying an LMG versus carrying a sub-machine gun your run speed will not be affected. Second, you can RELOAD while you are SPRINTING. This is something not even HALO will let you do..AND THAT'S A FUCKING SCIENCE FICTION GAME. And in the latest BF titles, there is no prone. What kind of sniper doesn't go prone!?!?

Point #3: Tanks!!! God I fucking hate them. They can take so much fucking damage it's ridiculous. Oh and if your tank happens to be on the brink of failing on you can you repair it all by yourself if you are an engineer. This is NOT realistic AT ALL.



Miscellaneous points:

-You can plant bombs and still have the ability to aim and shoot? :?:
-You can hold your breath forever while using a sniper.
-You can run forever .
-The destruction model in Battlefield is AWESOME. But with every pro there is a con. Thanks to the fact that every building can be blown up DICE modeled them all to be similar. It makes the map feel uninspired and boring when all of the buildings look practically the same inside out.
-Ironically bullets DON'T shoot through walls despite the games having so much emphasis on destruction

Point 1:
Weapons are not extremely accurate.

In 1942 the Type 96 was created to match the BAR that had 20 bullets. Its a way to make the game more balanced. Have 30 rounds would make it "IMBA". That was the way to do it before you could unlock weapons.

The Scar is considered a close combat AR with the short barrel, just like the F2000. If you watch the gun in game you will see that it has no barrel, just the silencer and the short button stock. In BF2 the Scar L and H are in different classes due to their different use.

The gun sounds are more accurate then most gun sounds in other games. DICE records different sounds from the gun, a sound near and how it sounds far away and mixes them together. This will create a more accurate over all sound.

The Sniper damage is this way to keep the game balanced. Having overpowered snipers would just enable more dickheads that cant play the game.

Point 2:
As a former member of the Swedish Army Dragoon Regiment and a LMG gunner I was taught to run the same speed as the guys without the "heavy" light machine gun. This is created so you would stay in your squad no matter what happen. The prone is back in BF3.

Point 3:
Tanks are weak for one reason, balance. Its almost impossible to destroy a tank these days. Several Hellfire missiles and RPGs would still just scratch the surface of them. To keep the game balanced they have downgraded the tanks to make the game more fun.


The other points...:
The first one I agree on, but I guess that it is done to keep the game easier to play.

The snipers doesnt hold their breath. You can see the breath movement in BC games and in the older ones.

In the army you are taught to run at a even pace for very very long distances. Even sprint for several hundreds of meters. But the unlimited sprint is there to make the huge maps "walkable".

The Frostbite engine does support destruction, but to keep it playable on console in the start, they needed to cut corners to make the game run smoother. Having real time psychic is extremely hard on the CPU on the computer. Take "Breach" for example, that games lags like a pig when more then 1 building is collapsing. But the Frostbite 2 engine will run differently when it comes to houses and destruction.

As for bullet penetration, yes a M95 should shoot right through the concrete walls. But all smaller walls and thinner things are penetrable by bullets.

Phyuck Yiu wrote:

Franko wrote:

Well you can't really Quick scope and no scope.... ^

Yes you can? No scoping in both games are mostly luck-based. It's dumb to mention.

Actually there is methods to CoD no scoping that make it hit in the exact center of the reticule.

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Phyuck Yiu wrote:

Franko wrote:

Well you can't really Quick scope and no scope.... ^

Yes you can? No scoping in both games are mostly luck-based. It's dumb to mention.

Actually there is methods to CoD no scoping that make it hit in the exact center of the reticule.

I don't like no scoping in either game, but if I don't have time to switch to my pistol I always try to no scope enemies at close range and about half the time I do hit them. And I think the method you are talking about is with quick-scoping not no scoping.

Phyuck Yiu wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Phyuck Yiu wrote:

Franko wrote:

Well you can't really Quick scope and no scope.... ^

Yes you can? No scoping in both games are mostly luck-based. It's dumb to mention.

Actually there is methods to CoD no scoping that make it hit in the exact center of the reticule.

I don't like no scoping in either game, but if I don't have time to switch to my pistol I always try to no scope enemies at close range and about half the time I do hit them. And I think the method you are talking about is with quick-scoping not no scoping.

In CoD if you crouch and fire at the same time the bullet will hit the exact center of the reticule.

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Phyuck Yiu wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Phyuck Yiu wrote:

Franko wrote:

Well you can't really Quick scope and no scope.... ^

Yes you can? No scoping in both games are mostly luck-based. It's dumb to mention.

Actually there is methods to CoD no scoping that make it hit in the exact center of the reticule.

I don't like no scoping in either game, but if I don't have time to switch to my pistol I always try to no scope enemies at close range and about half the time I do hit them. And I think the method you are talking about is with quick-scoping not no scoping.

In CoD if you crouch and fire at the same time the bullet will hit the exact center of the reticule.

Sounds more like a glitch than a game mechanic. I remember in Gears 1 you could get headshots even if your enemy is behind you since the bullet actually comes out of the center of your screen.

Snipers were heavily nerfed in Black Ops. Maybe MW3 would have this glitch but who knows? They said they are trying to balance the snipers while satisfying quick-scope fans.

Phyuck Yiu wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Phyuck Yiu wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Phyuck Yiu wrote:

Franko wrote:

Well you can't really Quick scope and no scope.... ^

Yes you can? No scoping in both games are mostly luck-based. It's dumb to mention.

Actually there is methods to CoD no scoping that make it hit in the exact center of the reticule.

I don't like no scoping in either game, but if I don't have time to switch to my pistol I always try to no scope enemies at close range and about half the time I do hit them. And I think the method you are talking about is with quick-scoping not no scoping.

In CoD if you crouch and fire at the same time the bullet will hit the exact center of the reticule.

Sounds more like a glitch than a game mechanic. I remember in Gears 1 you could get headshots even if your enemy is behind you since the bullet actually comes out of the center of your screen.

Snipers were heavily nerfed in Black Ops. Maybe MW3 would have this glitch but who knows? They said they are trying to balance the snipers while satisfying quick-scope fans.

LULWUT? Are you fucking kidding me? That's such a cheap no skill move and their keeping it? It's like they try to make COD worse with every new installment. Maybe there is some conspiracy going on and they are Government agents trying to make video games worse so people stop playing them.

Calm your nutsack nothing has been confirmed. They nerfed snipers in BO to the point where they are completely fucking useless. I think there will be a balance point between BO's terrible snipers and MW2's overpowered snipers.

BC2 sniping really isn't any harder. In fact, I get more lucky no scopes/quick scopes in that game than I do in Black Ops. Only real difference to me is that in COD you have to hold your breath and it's a one hit kill if it hits anywhere above the chest area (which to me is a bit more realistic?).

All in all both games are not war simulations. They both aim to be "semi-realistic" but at the end of the day they are just games that cater to different styles of play. CoD aims to be a fast-paced infantry style CQC game while Battlefield is more focused on vehicular combat and has more emphasis on team-play.

Quick Scoping isn't a no skill tactic.

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Quick Scoping isn't a no skill tactic.

It's an exploit of the aim assist. Nothing more nothing less.

BlackStigma wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Quick Scoping isn't a no skill tactic.

It's an exploit of the aim assist. Nothing more nothing less.

It's in Battlefield too you know...In fact it's in every console FPS with aim assist.

Quick scoping, yuck.